Non-compoundable matrimonial proceedings may be quashed under Section 528 BNSS upon genuine settlement.

Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 married on 15 June 2022 and began living separately that year; they had no children.

Respondent No. 2’s complaint led to registration of FIR No. 137/2023 under Sections 498A, 406, 506 and 34 IPC, alleging physical and mental harassment and unlawful dowry demands by petitioner No. 1 and his mother.

The parties later reached a mediated settlement under which they agreed to dissolve the marriage and settle their claims for Rs. 60,000, including articles, maintenance, Mehar and Iddat.

The settlement amount was paid, respondent No. 2 confirmed receipt and stated that she did not wish to pursue the matter, and the marriage was dissolved by decree dated 21 May 2026.

The parties sought quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings.

Whether the High Court could quash the FIR and consequential proceedings for non-compoundable offences arising from a matrimonial dispute, on the basis of the parties’ settlement.

Whether the settlement and respondent No. 2’s stated wish not to pursue the matter justified quashing the proceedings in the circumstances of this case.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings; the petition was also brought under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Relying on Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 SCC 58, the Court stated that proceedings in matrimonial disputes may be quashed, even where the offences are non-compoundable, when the parties have genuinely and amicably settled and quashing would secure the ends of justice without adversely affecting an overriding public interest.

The Court found that the matrimonial dispute had been finally settled through mediation, the agreed sum had been paid, the marriage had been dissolved, and respondent No. 2 personally confirmed that she did not wish to pursue the case.

The State had no serious objection to the petition.

Applying the principle in Jitendra Raghuvanshi, the Court concluded that there was no impediment to quashing the proceedings in light of the settlement.